Wednesday, November 14, 2012

As if the loss of the presidential election was not enough, Republicans must now suffer the indignity of being given bad advice.

As soon as the results of the election were in, moderates within the party announced that the problem lay in the party’s conservative position on social issues. The reason the Republicans lost was because of their opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage.

The people who argue this must not have been watching the same election as the rest of us. They talk as if Mitt Romney ran for president as some sort of crazed socially-conservative radical who wanted gays locked up and women forced to give birth at gunpoint. In fact, the Republicans this year did everything moderates in the party always say they should do: They nominated the least socially conservative legitimate candidate, and they almost completely ignored social issues.

You would think that if the advice of moderates in the party was good, it would actually work. But it clearly didn’t ...

Tell you what, GOP: here's my advice. Go ahead and do just that. Next election, make a bold and principled statement that you will no longer even provide lip service to the social c.'s agenda. That will free you up from all those embarrassing hyperboles thrown at you by the DNC.

And, of course, wave goodbye to my vote and my money. If you're better off without my issues, surely you'll be better off without my vote.

Honest. It might do us both good. For all the good the GOP is doing me these days, I might find it quite liberating.

"Honest. It might do us both good. For all the good the GOP is doing me these days, I might find it quite liberating."

I think you may have had an epiphany. What good does it do you for the GOP to keep promising to enact constitutional amendments to ban abortion and gay marriage when we all know its never going to happen?

Ky, regarding Republicans, I had my epiphany years and years ago. (Follow the link in my handle to my Reformed Trombonist blog and do a search on 'Republican', and please let me know precisely where it is that I have ever said anything good about the Republican Party.)

That's why I like the Tea Party, and why it was extremely disappointing when the media smeared them as bigots.

I used to say that we have two big-government, high-spending parties but one of them has to pretend otherwise at election time.

I no longer believe that. We still have two big-government, high-spending parties but the GOP has quit pretending.

Regarding the social conservative agenda, we are being urged to abandon hope that it can be enacted. William Wilberforce faced similar trials in his lifelong dedication to abolishing slavery in Britain. You can't give up on an ideal just because your erstwhile standard-bearers have lost their stomach for fighting.

Christians don't quit believing in cause and effect just because they believe many if not most, or all, of the causes are supernatural in origin. Engaging in child sacrifice was condemned as a great evil in the Old Testament and led to the precipitous fall of many nations. Abortion is simply high-tech child sacrifice. We cannot and will not prosper again as a nation until we rid ourselves of that evil practice. The end could come with a bang, or (as with Europe) with a whimper, as an entire civilization has just given up on having children and will soon be handing their house keys over to Islamic immigrants.

But liberals have won at least one argument with me: yes, the GOP is the party of the rich and entrenched. They will compromise every other stance they promised to uphold but will always stand firm on not raising taxes on the rich by two cents per billion.

"But liberals have won at least one argument with me: yes, the GOP is the party of the rich and entrenched. They will compromise every other stance they promised to uphold but will always stand firm on not raising taxes on the rich by two cents per billion."

The revolution will not come because of partisan divides, rather, it will come when enough Americans realize that an elite class has sold this country and its citizens down the river. As my favorite poli-sci professor once said...whoever said that America, born of revolution, would only have one civil war?

So tell us, Lee - how would you justify the Catholic Church's murder of Savita Halappanavar? Party line, or do you have a different slant on a murder done in order to satisfy twisted and evil Christian morality?

You ought to ask Art which priest it was who "murdered Savita Halappanavar." You might also find out which Church this murder was performed at. Oh, and make sure he tells you which official Catholic doctrine they did it at the behest of.

I have lived in ireland for the past few years. The Catholic Church there is constantly agitating against abortion legislation - even for cases in which the mother's life is in danger. In fact, it is one of their last raisons d'etre in that catholic bastions.

For example, it was their main point of opposition to recent European treaties, such as the Lisbon Treaty.

It is beyond cynical for Martin to come on here and pretend as if the Catholic Church had nothing to do with this death.

It is even more cyical and hypocritical for him to question whether this is 'murder' or not, given that he has attacked Obama for supporting legislation that would supposedly prevent doctors from saving the life of aborted babies, referring to the testimony of a nurse who said it was the prectice for late term abortions to leave the babies in a room to die.

So does everybody get this:

For Martin, leaving an aborted fetus with a heartbeat in a room to die after abortion is baby murder.

Leaving a grown woman with a husband and family to writhe in pain for days and then dies of blood poisoning with a dead fetus inside her is not murder...it's...well, what is it, Martin?

I'll answer your question, Art, if you'll answer one for me: why is it legal to insert a vacuum cleaner into a baby's brain just inches before finding himself out of his mother's womb, and murder if the baby is just inches out of it?

My evil and twisted Christian morality can't make any sense of it. Perhaps your high and enlightened sense of agnostic morality can.

He was stating the law in Ireland - the law that is advocated and has been vocally defended by the Catholic Church in Ireland for decades.

We are talking about a country here where contraceptives were illegal until 1990.

You seem to be adamant that the Catholic Church had nothing to with this death, Martin. So are you saying that -according to Catholic Doctrine - it would have been the moral imperative to abort this fetus and save the woman's life? And to not do so constitutes murder?

Is that what you're saying?

Time to actually come out and say what you think Martin. For someone who has just penned a series of articlies calling on Mitt Romney and the GOP to stand up and 'articulate' their moral positions, you are doing an awful lot of non-commital dodging and hiding behind questions like some moral coward. One rule for thee, but not for me? Some moral pundit you are...

Why is it murder to leave an aborted fetus to die, but not murder to leave a grown woman to die in a hospital bed?

Here is a suggestion as to how the GOP can oppose abortion without turning off women. The political battle over requiring insurance companies to provide free contraception to women was a complete political loser for the GOP. It didn't even move Catholics, who supported the President by a 52-48 margin. Providing women the most effective contraceptives available could significantly reduce the abortion rate. Dropping the GOP's objection to contraceptives seems to be a no-brainer. As a national political party there is no particular reason that the GOP has to be in perfect alignment with the Catholic Church, especially when the vast majority of Catholic women ignore the Church's teachings against contraceptives. If the GOP supports policies that empower women to avoid unwanted pregnancies that lead to abortion, it seems to me that helps the party without violating its pro-life principles.

There are lots and lots of post mortem analyses going around about why Romney lost. We know so much that the next time Romney runs against Obama in 2012, he may even win.

All I know is that Romney could have won. It was at least close enough to suggest that. What could he have done differently to win? Let the rehashing begin. But I doubt his stance on contraception had much to do with anything. Just an opinion.

What you're suggesting here, Ky, is that in order to make a stand against something that is very wrong, we actively push a policy that is also wrong, but less so.

I'll take your suggestion and file it under, "Tips for Conservatives Who Believe the Best Strategy for Winning is to Become Liberals."

Lee, 3:12 anony here. I am a small l libertarian Republican leaner..see Reagan on that. I also believe in God (non-determinist in my childhood church teachings) and his emissary Jesus Christ, and I have no doubt that both weep with every abortion, but the United States is not a country which sacrifices children by allowing individual choice on the matter...that would be China. All I was pointing out is that the GOP is not really serious about your concerns except in garnering votes. I also despise big L libertarians because their God is the lousy human being Ayn Rand. Yes, she was prescient in warning about the evils of communism, but she was just one of many similar, less romanticized (and correct) such voices. Rand wasn't just a proud atheist, she was a sneering atheist who brooked no dissent on the matter, kind of like our friend Singring who isn't satisfied with his own belief (non-belief) but wants to demean Christians because they can't scientifically prove the existence of God. I get kind of personal with him mostly because I despise such sneering from proudly secular Europeans (have it your way over there, Singring) who have no idea what American character is all about, not exceptional but very, very different. We don't want to substitute God for government and science and "reason" because we have seen those fruits in officially Godless states such as the Soviet Union and China, and despite the crap that Hitler was a Catholic, actually he was demonic as were his henchmen who drove the good German people into pawns of state and sanctioned beliefs and state murder with a lot of emphasis on science and the "improvement" of man. Peace in Christ, Lee.

You are making the claim that the Catholic Church requires that a doctor cannot save the mother even when the life of both the mother and the unborn child are at stake, which, according to news reports, was the case here. You (and Art) are the one making the claim, so the burden of proof is on you.

So the question is what proof is there that the Catholic Church holds this position. So far, you haven't produced any.

"What you're suggesting here, Ky, is that in order to make a stand against something that is very wrong, we actively push a policy that is also wrong, but less so."

The GOP doesn't even have to push it, because with the President's re-election, the policy for insurance companies providing free contraceptives is in place. I would suggest it would be stupid for the GOP to run on repealing contraceptive coverage in 2016, especially if its helped reduce the abortion rate. I am curious as to what issues you think did fuel the gender gap if you don't think contraceptive coverage was a significant issue.

That gender gap thing is explained by the single woman, married woman divide KyCobb. How pathetic that the modern Democratic Party has devolved into bragging about paying for birth control through tax dollars or destroying public education in big cities as long as the unions deliver votes or turning their head to the disastrous effects of third generation total welfare dependency which turns safety nets into chains as long as the votes are delivered. Let's all pay attention to the once great state of Californai where Democrats have full operational control..and then we'll remember why federalism is THE American political debate. PS I've lived in Chicago and the Community Organizer In Chief missed several spots.

'You are making the claim that the Catholic Church requires that a doctor cannot save the mother even when the life of both the mother and the unborn child are at stake, which, according to news reports, was the case here. You (and Art) are the one making the claim, so the burden of proof is on you.

So the question is what proof is there that the Catholic Church holds this position. So far, you haven't produced any.'

The Catholic Church has ceaselessly supported the current law in Ireland. This was the law that required these doctors to deny the woman an abortion.

Just recently there was a conference in Dublin at which Catholic doctors pronounced that it is never necessary to perform an abortion to save a mother's life.

Here is the website of the Catholic doctor's association in Ireland that endorses this conference and its findings:

http://irishcatholicdoctors.com/1.html

This site links to various official Catholic Church websites which contain official Church documents arguing for life beginning at conception etc.

Here is an article outlining the history of abortion legislation in ireland and the role conservative Catholicism has had on it:

Meanwhile, still nor response at all on your own moral stance, Martin. That's true moral courage on display.

I really didn't expect anyone could take a more vague position on abortion as Mitt Romney. So now, to find you - chief moral advisor to the GOP - to be so averse to articulating your position on this moral issue...well I never.

But I'm sure if the GOP behaves in the way you are right now the voters - especially women - will just be running down their doors, enthralled by the clear beacons of morality shining forth from its members.

Now that the political elites of both parties are dusting off immigration reform and will tell us that they really,really mean it this time about borders and employer sanctions but this time it's not 3 but 12 million ushered in...well, look for the Catholic Church to be right there with them. I'm sure they would feel the same if it was 12 million Lutherans we were talking about.

I'm a Catholic, my moral position is as the Church states it. And the Church's position is that, in cases like ectopic pregnancy (which is equivalent to the Irish case), in which both the baby and the mother will die if nothing is done, measures can be taken to save the mother,even if those measures indirectly result in the death of the baby.

So if the law in Ireland demands what is reported to have happened, then it does not accord with the Catholic position. But I think it is more likely you have your facts wrong.

When you have satisfied your need for bloviating in a case in which serious moral discourse would be more appropriate, you might look at the actual law in question to see if it actually required what happened.

"Now that the political elites of both parties are dusting off immigration reform and will tell us that they really,really mean it this time about borders and employer sanctions but this time it's not 3 but 12 million ushered in...well, look for the Catholic Church to be right there with them. I'm sure they would feel the same if it was 12 million Lutherans we were talking about."

Reminiscent of the 19th Century immigration fears. That hasn't been any net illegal immigration from Mexico since the crash; about as many are going home as are coming here, since the crash wiped out the home construction industry, eliminating lots of the jobs migrants were doing. And with Mexico developing economically, there is less need for them to come here for jobs anyway. This is another issue on which the GOP can change its stance to a principled one that immigration is the central story of the American Dream, and quit alienating a growing demographic.

KyCobb, have you ever attended a "new American ceremony"..where new Americans raise their hands and swear allegiance to America and foreswear their former lands? I have, and my friend from England spent 7 years and thousands of dollars and dealt with paperwork on top of paperwork, and he did it while washing dishes and cleaning offices and living in a dump. He had no idea he could have just bought a one way plane ticket and overstayed his visa. Keep trying to make the issue racism and feel better about yourself, but why should American immigration law be so geared to Mexico...and take a look at how ruthlessly Mexico enforces its southern border.

I will, thanks. Actually, I find it an interesting exercise to think about how to modernize the GOP. It doesn't have to abandon conservative principles; it just has to make them more positive rather than alienating.

'And the Church's position is that, in cases like ectopic pregnancy (which is equivalent to the Irish case), in which both the baby and the mother will die if nothing is done, measures can be taken to save the mother,even if those measures indirectly result in the death of the baby.'

That is incredibly vague. What would be such 'measures'? If they only 'indirectly' lead to the death of the fetus, then I suspect actually aborting it would not be permissible as that would be - in your own words - murdering a baby, would it not?

'When you have satisfied your need for bloviating in a case in which serious moral discourse would be more appropriate, you might look at the actual law in question to see if it actually required what happened.'

I'm not the one advising everyone from political parties to the Swedes about their moral ineptitude, am I?

There is an investigation under way in this case and we'll have to see what the result of it all is.

But to claim that the Catholic Church had nothing to do with the law that is on the books and the attitude of these doctors in applying it is simply absurd.

It is worth remembering that this case occurred in Galway - the same town where the university hosted the 'there is never a medical necessity for abortion' conference.

"What you're suggesting here, Ky, is that in order to make a stand against something that is very wrong, we actively push a policy that is also wrong, but less so."

I know I've already responded to this once, but I'm going to do so again because I want to write down what I've been thinking about. The US has an electoral system which encourages a two party system because we have districts which elect one representative; whoever gets the most votes of the candidates running wins, and everyone else goes home. Other countries have more or less proportional representation, so that third party candidates can get elected to represent the section of the electorate that votes for them. In those countries, a person can find a party whose ideology fits them like a custom tailored suit, and after the election, the parties negotiate with each other to create a majority coalition to form a government. In the U.S., otoh, since third parties rarely have enough voters to get a plurality of the vote in any single district, coalitions are formed within the two major political parties. In recent years, the Tea Party has been engaged in the great RINO hunt to drive out of the GOP everyone who isn't in complete agreement on a range of issues within a very narrow bandwidth of the ideological spectrum. In the US, there are a lot of people in that bandwidth, but not enough to form a majority. IOW, if conservatives insist that the GOP's ideology must conform perfectly to their beliefs, and people who are somewhat right of center are not welcome, because, for example, they like the convenience of having free contraceptive coverage with their insurance policies, then the GOP better start working to convert the US to a proportional system of representation, because otherwise the Democrats will welcome all of the GOP apostates with open arms, and become the governing party of the Republic much as the GOP was after the Civil War and the Democrats became again with the New Deal Coalition.

> In recent years, the Tea Party has been engaged in the great RINO hunt to drive out of the GOP everyone who isn't in complete agreement on a range of issues within a very narrow bandwidth of the ideological spectrum.

The radical left did the same sort of thing to the Democratic Party, driving moderates like Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman out of the party. But I don't suppose that was a problem, per se, was it?

The Tea Party wants two things: responsible spending and less intrusive government. It's amazing to me that these two principles can be so completely marginalized and painted up as if they are extremist views.

Every time I talk to a liberal, I realize anew just how far gone our country is.

When we're completely bankrupt, when we're struggling to feed ourselves from our backyard vegetable plots and desperate to protect ourselves from rioters and looters because the government can no longer write a check that doesn't bounce, I'll be sure to congratulate all of you on a job well done. At least we'll have your social programs to console us. Oh, wait, we won't have those either when we can't pay the bills.

You really don't have a clue about economics. The US isn't even remotely close to being bankrupt. We could easily fund the US government from tax revenue, but right now that would be stupid. Interest rates on Treasury Bonds are so low that people are actually paying the US government to take their money, so jacking up the rate of taxation would just cut deeply into demand and bring on another recession. Once full employment is restored, the national debt will naturally go down as a percentage of GDP because tax revenues will go up and people with jobs need less assistance. The GOP knows that, that's why they don't worry about the national debt when a Republican is in the White House.